Quick risk level check for a Solana token. Returns LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH/CRITICAL. Free preview - use scan_token for full analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mint | Yes | Solana token mint address (base58) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns a risk level classification (LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH/CRITICAL) and implies it is a lightweight preview by calling itself 'Quick' and 'Free preview'. However, it does not mention whether the call is read-only, error behavior for invalid mint addresses, or any rate limits, which would be useful but are not critical for a simple preview tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, using two sentences to state the purpose, output values, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Quick risk level check') and wastes no words, earning a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what it does, what it returns, and how it differs from the full analysis tool scan_token. It does not explain what each risk level means or how it is calculated, but for a free preview, this is acceptable. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly in many contexts.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully describes the single parameter 'mint' with 'Solana token mint address (base58)'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so with 100% schema description coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs a 'Quick risk level check' for a Solana token, with a specific output of LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH/CRITICAL. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool scan_token by explicitly saying 'use scan_token for full analysis', making its scope and resource clearly defined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides usage guidance: it is a 'Free preview' intended for a quick check, with the alternative 'use scan_token for full analysis' when more comprehensive results are needed. This tells the agent when to select this tool versus its sibling scan_token.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct domain: competitor intel, market regime, social trends, trading signals, token risk analysis, server health, and tool discovery. Even scan_token and scan_token_preview are clearly differentiated as full analysis vs. quick preview.
Four tools follow a consistent get_* pattern, and two follow scan_* pattern, but 'health' and 'list_tools' break the convention. Mixed verb styles and one bare noun reduce consistency.
Eight tools is well-scoped for a specialized crypto intelligence server, covering market analysis, social trends, competitor intel, and risk scanning without unnecessary bloat.
The core lifecycle of intelligence gathering and risk assessment is covered, including full and preview token scans. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct token metadata endpoint), but agents can work around them with existing tools.